The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
gerrandesquire
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Morality Without God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,460 times Debate No: 12325
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

FREEDO

Pro

There does not need to be a God and/or we do not need to believe in a God for us to have valid moral principles we should live by.

No tricky semantics for this debate.
gerrandesquire

Con

I see that Freedo has posed a quite simple seeming statement- For us to live by moral principles, we need not believe in God.

My argument is quite simple too. If we do not believe in god, and nor His teachings, then who would decide the ‘valid moral principles' as you say? God is someone who is eternal, who does not change with time, who is there, always. He is someone who is always present in our conscience, telling us wrong from right. So, if we eliminate Him from our existence, the person whom we are relying on, is Us- i.e me and the society. And that is a shaky foundation in itself.

Also, even if we know (without God telling us) what the moral principles are, what use are they if we don't follow them. Man is inadvertently guided by the force or the basic nature of Karma. i.e we will be punished for all the wrong that we do. There is no scientific basis for the claim, but it is something that we know, or fear. Man is basically a selfish being and if he thinks he can get away with something, there is very little to hold him back, and only a man of infinite patience and calmness can actually follow his moral principles just because it is wrong to do so.

If man were not fallen, i.e., not corrupted by sin, we would have limitless potential to create from within ourselves a universal moral code. But, we are a fallen lot, every last one of us, and therefore incapable of fully knowing what is good (Rom. 3:23). We are even incapable of carrying out what we do know to be good (Rom. 7:18-21).
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

And welcome her to her first debate.

"My argument is quite simple too. If we do not believe in god, and nor His teachings, then who would decide the ‘valid moral principles' as you say?"

And there is a simple answer.
No one "decides" the validity of anything. Objectively, it's either true or it's not.

"God is someone who is eternal, who does not change with time, who is there, always. He is someone who is always present in our conscience, telling us wrong from right. So, if we eliminate Him from our existence, the person whom we are relying on, is Us- i.e me and the society. And that is a shaky foundation in itself."

You forget that there may not even be a God at all. If this is the case than our only foundation for our morals would be ourselves and society anyway, with no consequence on whether we believe in him or not. I also do not think it is a shaky foundation, for it is based solely on reason. If there's any shaky foundation here it's that we get our morals from God, for this is founded on faith. Morality should not be a matter to be taken on faith.

"Also, even if we know (without God telling us) what the moral principles are, what use are they if we don't follow them. Man is inadvertently guided by the force or the basic nature of Karma. i.e we will be punished for all the wrong that we do. There is no scientific basis for the claim, but it is something that we know, or fear."

Since my opponent has conceded that it is a claim not based on logic, it has no practical application in this debate. Our moral systems must be founded on reason.

"Man is basically a selfish being and if he thinks he can get away with something, there is very little to hold him back, and only a man of infinite patience and calmness can actually follow his moral principles just because it is wrong to do so."
Indeed mankind is selfish. You have not shown how this a bad thing though. I argue that it is not. I feel my own existence, it is only rational to pursue my own pleasure.
Also, the mind-set behind your sentiment seems to be one that is pessimistic to human nature. It has long been practiced in the history of perverted moral systems to declare it's faults on man. When it fails to create peace in Earth, it's proponent would declare that their system is just but that mankind's nature is not just enough to follow it.
I think, that in essence, such a mind-set is illogical and inherently immoral as well. We are highly evolved, rational beings. It is only from our own nature that we can discern any right from wrong.

"If man were not fallen, i.e., not corrupted by sin, we would have limitless potential to create from within ourselves a universal moral code. But, we are a fallen lot, every last one of us, and therefore incapable of fully knowing what is good (Rom. 3:23). We are even incapable of carrying out what we do know to be good (Rom. 7:18-21)."

If you dare post bible verses as a champion for morality, I will have to respond to them with others.

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

(Hosea 13:16) That's God supposedly speaking.

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

(Leviticus 20:13) God says kill the gays.

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense."

(Leviticus 20:9) God speaking. Children, be obedient! OR ELSE!

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

(Romans 13:1-2) OOH! Some New Testament! Hitler was put here by God we must not challenge such authority.

Sorry, got off topic, but I think you see my point. In making a case for morality, do not quote the bible.

===My Case===

Here is what I propose.

The only just moral system, whether a God exists or not, is one founded purely upon reason. Not faith.

Since a moral system can only be just when it is rational, it is most fitting to simply declare that rationality is morality.

Rationality=morality.

Irrationality =immorality

This is the only thing that makes any sense. The only one objectively true and absolute moral principle is the pursuit of reason.

Faith is irrational and thus far too often leads to immoral systems.

Faith is the making of ignorance into a virtue. Not the simple acknowledgment of ignorance in matters, which is intellectual, but the actual worshiping and reverence of ignorance.

Faith is the accepting of what you do not know as true.

To reason is to realize what you do and do not know and to accept them as such, for what they are.

In being rational, we must work out our moral system based from what it is we know.

What do we know?

You do not know there is a God.

In-fact, you don't even know I'm a real person or if anything around you is real, it may all be an illusion.

What you do know is existence exists. Everything that is, is. Though, you are not aware of nature of all that is.

This is the recognition of the objective.

What you also know is that you exist. You think, therefor your are.

This is the recognition of the subjective.

Within this subjective existence you also know what you sense. When you are angry, sad, happy, in pain, comfortable, etc.

And lastly you know that some of things are preferable to others. Some are good, some are bad. Some negative, some positive. Some that should be pursued and some that should be avoided.

These things are what you KNOW. And these are the only things of which you KNOW. Nothing else is directly known with any certainty.

So, in the pursuit of reason, it is from these things that our moral system must be devised. Not from a God. Whether one exists or not.

I will go farther into detail later on.
gerrandesquire

Con

"I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

And welcome her to her first debate."
Thanks, it's my pleasure;
And now, onto my argument…

"You forget that there may not even be a God at all. If this is the case than our only foundation for our morals would be ourselves and society anyway, with no consequence on whether we believe in him or not. I also do not think it is a shaky foundation, for it is based solely on reason. If there's any shaky foundation here it's that we get our morals from God, for this is founded on faith. Morality should not be a matter to be taken on faith."

The main point here is not whether there is God or not, the main point is whether we believe in Him or not. So if we believe in Him, We are in a triangular loop where there is Us, society and the God. So that is not a shaky foundation, for we believe in him, and so the three determinants would be always there… On the other hand if we do not believe in him, there is just us and the society. The point I was making was that we are constantly changing. Our perception may change from today to tomorrow, our close society, i.e our group of friends may change too, they would have different ideologies. So, that, is what I think would be a shaky foundation, because both the determinants –society and us too would change.

"Since my opponent has conceded that it is a claim not based on logic, it has no practical application in this debate. Our moral systems must be founded on reason." (on my reference that there is no scientific proof for the basic nature of Karma, but still it is what many times prompt us to follow the right path)

Our moral systems must be founded on reason, and I agree to that.

Let us take an example, let us say that I believe that if I would steal anything from anyone, the deed will bring misfortune for me in future. So, for not stealing, that is a reason enough for me. Because if I really, Really STRONGLY want the thing, just the fact that it is wrong to steal, would not stop me. I might rationalize it out, saying that it is just one time, or that I really need it, or the person wouldn't notice… the excuses are endless. But my belief that stealing would harm my future would stop me. Because now the action would affect me. Adversely.

"Indeed mankind is selfish. You have not shown how this a bad thing though."

I have actually stated that being a selfish being, "if he thinks he can get away with something, there is very little to hold him back, and only a man of infinite patience and calmness can actually follow his moral principles just because it is wrong to do so." As I explained, with example in the previous paragraph.

"I argue that it is not. I feel my own existence, it is only rational to pursue my own pleasure."

That is what is the first step to a vicious cycle. Of course it is rational to pursue your own pleasure, but this can give a ‘reason' to many crimes. This is where faith and the relation between God and morality come into play.

Here is what I propose.

We live our lives. We have work to do, and we are, generally speaking- caught in the duties and aspirations and the rat race and whatnot of life. In this race, sometimes, or rather many a times, we would be tempted to nudge across the line of morals, of doing wrong things, for revenge, out of jealousy, etc, etc. This is natural and I think we both agree on this. Now, our difference mainly arise on choosing the system to overrule or barricade this temptation.

So, we are tempted to cross the line. If we were to make our own rules, ‘for we are highly evolved species and rational beings', we can justify revenge. (‘A person did wrong to me, so it is fair for me to do wrong to him'), pride (‘I did good, I am better than most, it's the truth, I can't do anything about that'), envy , many many sins. Because we are our own masters, we make our own rules, so we can tweak them a little. And that's what most of the time bring us down.

But when we are accepting the rules given by the God, we know that revenge, pride and envy, they all are the deadly sins. And when we know this, and when's we haven't rationalized them out, we actually follow the morals. Because we know it's wrong. We accept it.

The point I'm trying to make is that we NEED something stable in our lives; we need something that does not change. We need to have a basis or something that gives us the knowledge about what wrong and right is. Maybe some people believe that they can make their own rules, and that they can actually follow them, but fighting with yourself is most of the times much, much easier. This isn't pessimistic; it's just the truth, or realistic view of the problem.
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

"The main point here is not whether there is God or not, the main point is whether we believe in Him or not."

Whether there can logically be a God or not has a great deal to do with it. If believing in him is unreasonable and our moral system is based off our belief in him than our moral system is equally unreasonable.

And I contend that it is indeed unreasonable to believe in him as you can see I have clearly pointed out in my past debates.

"So if we believe in Him, We are in a triangular loop where there is Us, society and the God. So that is not a shaky foundation, for we believe in him, and so the three determinants would be always there"

Anything founded on faith is a shaky foundation. If it can be called a foundation at all.

"On the other hand if we do not believe in him, there is just us and the society."

And you again missed the point that if there is no God than it's just us and society anyway, whether we believe in him or not. And since believing in him is founded on faith and faith is unreasonable, than any moral system you denote being derived from him is also unreasonable.

"The point I was making was that we are constantly changing. Our perception may change from today to tomorrow, our close society, i.e our group of friends may change too, they would have different ideologies. So, that, is what I think would be a shaky foundation, because both the determinants –society and us too would change."

Besides it being entirely unclear how you were trying to make that point to begin with--how is it relevant? Whether God exists or not, or whether we believe in him or not, we are still the constantly changing people we are.

"Our moral systems must be founded on reason, and I agree to that.

Let us take an example, let us say that I believe that if I would steal anything from anyone, the deed will bring misfortune for me in future. So, for not stealing, that is a reason enough for me. Because if I really, Really STRONGLY want the thing, just the fact that it is wrong to steal, would not stop me. I might rationalize it out, saying that it is just one time, or that I really need it, or the person wouldn't notice… the excuses are endless. But my belief that stealing would harm my future would stop me. Because now the action would affect me. Adversely."

Ha. This seems reasonable to you. But if your belief that you will be punished afterward is unfounded than it definitely unreasonable. You say you believe in karma, and it is your belief in karma which pushes you to be a moral being. But your belief in karma is founded solely on faith, with nothing to back it up. Which makes the belief in karma irrational. We can only be sure our moral system is just if it is based entirely off of rationality.

I say we will indeed be punished for being immoral. But not because of karma. My assertion is not founded on faith, but on reason. And we will not have to wait for any after-life or reincarnation to feel it. For my morality is the one of consequentionalism. And the one of this life which we hold now.

"I have actually stated that being a selfish being, "if he thinks he can get away with something, there is very little to hold him back, and only a man of infinite patience and calmness can actually follow his moral principles just because it is wrong to do so." As I explained, with example in the previous paragraph."

But you are taking completely and wrongly under assumption that in this person's moral code, selfishness is a bad thing. Why is being selfish immoral?
Indeed, according to my code of rationalism, it is not. Rather, quite the contrary.
It is our selfishness which pushes us to be moral beings, those who seek pleasure and avoid displeasure.
I contend that you are actually the same! But do not realize it. Your code based on karma is one which is also based on selfishness. You say you will not steal because you believe it will bring you displeasure later. This means you are acting in selfishness.
I too espouse a system like this but without the need for faith. We can quite clearly see during the life we have now what will bring us pleasure and displeasure.
Faith is a way to keep the simple-minded in line. Those who do not realize they can have the morality they seek, based on reason instead.

"That is what is the first step to a vicious cycle. Of course it is rational to pursue your own pleasure, but this can give a ‘reason' to many crimes. This is where faith and the relation between God and morality come into play."

I assert that any "crime" committed against humanity in the name of selfishness was done out of irrationality because the person wrongfully judged what is truly in their self-interest. Which I will get to later.

"We live our lives. We have work to do, and we are, generally speaking- caught in the duties and aspirations and the rat race and whatnot of life. In this race, sometimes, or rather many a times, we would be tempted to nudge across the line of morals, of doing wrong things, for revenge, out of jealousy, etc, etc. This is natural and I think we both agree on this. Now, our difference mainly arise on choosing the system to overrule or barricade this temptation."

You propose faith, I propose reason.

"So, we are tempted to cross the line. If we were to make our own rules,"

Which we do.

"we can justify revenge.(‘A person did wrong to me, so it is fair for me to do wrong to him'), pride (‘I did good, I am better than most, it's the truth, I can't do anything about that'), envy , many many sins. Because we are our own masters, we make our own rules, so we can tweak them a little. And that's what most of the time bring us down. "

Nah, ah, ah. We could try. But it may or may not still be illogical. You seem to think taking God out of the picture means that whatever humans do is justifiable because we "make our own rules". But whether we make them or not, they can still be logical or illogical. I propose that the correct moral system is to live by pursuing logic best we can. Logic is essential my God.

"The point I'm trying to make is that we NEED something stable in our lives; we need something that does not change. We need to have a basis or something that gives us the knowledge about what wrong and right is. Maybe some people believe that they can make their own rules, and that they can actually follow them, but fighting with yourself is most of the times much, much easier. This isn't pessimistic; it's just the truth, or realistic view of the problem."

The unchanging thing we need is LOGIC. Not faith! Everything that is logical is going to stay logical and everything that is illogical is going to stay illogical, whether we decide it or not. It's just a matter of figuring them out. Which is the art of rationality. Thus pursuing reason is our only true morality.

===Continuation of my case===

I have already stated how rationality is our only true morality.

I have stated what this means is realizing what we do and do not know, then accepting them as such for what they are. Which is the rejection of faith.

I then stated what it is we know.

Now I will state what that translates to in everyday life. What keeps me from killing people, stealing from people or many other things largely considered to be immoral.

It is clear we must pursue happiness.

The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of that universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.

One must merely ask themselves when deciding if something is wrong to do:
"If everyone did it, would it be beneficial to me?"

One best achieves happiness from a proper society.

For your own happiness, you must also pursue the happiness of others. So to create this proper society.

Cooperation is also essential to this morality.
gerrandesquire

Con

gerrandesquire forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
FREEDO

Pro

My opponent was unable to post her last round in time.

However, she has made her case in the comments section.

I accept this as legitimate.

For ease of access, I will post what she said here:

===Con's Argument===

I tried to reply to your claims sentence by sentence, but they say the same thing, so I better club up my response over here.

"Every one of us believes in something which helps us to live a life on earth."

" It's useless for me to think that I am merely a perishable body that is nothing but just the outcome of an accident with big bang etc. I contemplate on the physical part of our existence and enjoy the fragrance of a divine presence of someone who has planned to make this human body so dexterously and beautifully. Some vital and delicate parts of our body are protected by covering with hard bones and skeleton. Is there no logic to believe a planner who is superior to human being? We may call Him as God or with any other name; whatever we may like to call Him."~dipu]

The question about whether there is a god or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. The question is about our belief in him. If we believe in him, we have our reasons, and if we don't , it's the lack of reasons. But if we believe in him, we, at every point include him in our decisions, and thus that feeling shapes our actions, and our character, and finally morals. If we don't, we simply don't include him anywhere and it's just us and the society… While shaping our decisions, we don't have to prove his existence to us. So, the actuality does not affect our decisions. So I don't see how whether God exists or not has any relation to the discussion in continuation. It does not affect our decisions. Nor our actions.

This is what sums up mostly everything.

[She goes on:]

Now, what you state, logic and reason, theoretically may seem easy, it may seem that it is the better answer, a better proposal to the world. But really, it is infinitely weaker than it seems. Simply because Man is not that strong.
Let us take an example. At a four pointer road, we Need a red light, right?
Why?
Every vehicle-driver knows the rules, it knows the logic, the reason, it knows it shouldn't cross when another one is crossing, but still we need a red light to regulate the traffic. or there is a traffic jam. It's simple. On an infinitely small proportion, man cannot live without a regulator. How can you expect him to live and follow logic and rules when he believes there is no regulator of the world?
This is what is eating the world today. Today we just can't imagine there is a god. We don't believe we are answerable to anyone, and slowly and steadily this competitive ideology is coming into being. This ideology that states- in simple words, ‘the end result matters'. The ‘by hook and by crook' thinking. This is what happens when we don't believe in the things we should.

[She quotes me:]

"One must merely ask themselves when deciding if something is wrong to do:
"If everyone did it, would it be beneficial to me?""

Yes, one should. But will one? That's a question worth asking. You are proposing something that would seem ideal, and can be workable. But the probability is very less. It's almost impossible. It's like we are comparing a bad democracy to a good dictatorship. Can there be a good dictatorship? Yes. But the chances…? Really less. Because with great power comes great responsibility. In a dictatorship, the power is given to a single person. And yet the person actually exercising the power responsibly is infinitely less compared to the people exploiting it. In fact, I can't recall even one at this point of time. But the system you are proposing, you propose to give the power to hundreds, thousands, millions of people and expect them to exercise it responsibly.
The chances are almost nil.

===Response===

"The question about whether there is a god or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. The question is about our belief in him. If we believe in him, we have our reasons, and if we don't , it's the lack of reasons. But if we believe in him, we, at every point include him in our decisions, and thus that feeling shapes our actions, and our character, and finally morals. If we don't, we simply don't include him anywhere and it's just us and the society… While shaping our decisions, we don't have to prove his existence to us. So, the actuality does not affect our decisions. So I don't see how whether God exists or not has any relation to the discussion in continuation. It does not affect our decisions. Nor our actions."

If you haven't figured it out already, let me be as clear as possible:

1. For a moral system to be just and valid it MUST be based on reason. You agreed to this.

2. IF the belief in God is unreasonable than any moral system based off belief in him is invalid.

3. This debate is on whether the nonbelief in God can result in a just and valid moral system.

4. Thus the reasonability of believing in God is entirely relevant to this debate.

Do you get it now? Ok, now I'll go further with that.

1. I have already stated that the definition of reason includes that we realize what it is we do and do not know and except them as such, for what the are.

2. I also stated that the concept of faith is in contradiction to that. Faith being the acceptance of things as true which you do not know.

3. Belief in God requires faith.

4. Thus any moral system based off of belief in God IS invalid. So I have actually already won this debate.

"Every vehicle-driver knows the rules, it knows the logic, the reason, it knows it shouldn't cross when another one is crossing, but still we need a red light to regulate the traffic. or there is a traffic jam. It's simple. On an infinitely small proportion, man cannot live without a regulator. How can you expect him to live and follow logic and rules when he believes there is no regulator of the world?"

Alas, you make a huge fail in this argument.

There, indeed, is a grand regulator. They are called the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Not a God

Here is where you fail; The intrinsic laws of reality are not a matter of opinion. They cannot be justifiably denied, only accepted or left unrecognized.
Whereas the concept of God is hugely susceptible to opinion. Look at all the religions of the world, all the different views of God, all with contradicting morals, all who yet claim that true morality can only be based off their vision of God.

"Yes, one should. But will one? That's a question worth asking."

Worth asking--definitely! Relevant to the debate? Absolutely not. We're debating on the just legitimacy of opposing moral system. Whether one choose to follow it or not says nothing about the actual system. The same question be just as easily asked of God-based morality. What if they don't follow God's will? It is irrelevant to the debate.

Thus my showcase for a viable moral-system without God remains apparently valid.

===Conclusion===

I have not only clearly shown how a just and viable more system can and does exist without the belief in God or the existence of God, but I have also shown just as clearly how the opposing view, one that there is a God, actually can produce no logically valid and just moral system.

I thank my opponent for the pleasant debate.

VOTE PRO.

One more closing thing: [see video]
gerrandesquire

Con

"1. I have already stated that the definition of reason includes that we realize what it is we do and do not know and except them as such, for what the are.
2. I also stated that the concept of faith is in contradiction to that. Faith being the acceptance of things as true which you do not know.
3. Belief in God requires faith.
4. Thus any moral system based off of belief in God IS invalid. So I have actually already won this debate."

Okay, this is a point I wish to take. ‘Faith being the acceptance of things as true which you do not know', yes, its true. But that is like the essence of life. At every point of time, we are (inadvertently) believing in something that we're not sure is true. I trust my father will act in our best interests while taking care of the finances of our house, I have ‘faith' that my mother will cook for me this evening, I drive on the road trusting that everyone will follow the rules of driving. So, whether with strangers or with intimate friends and companions, because we cannot fully know others, faith is always a necessary component of our relationships. We cannot live peacefully, or have a qualitative life if we don't have faith, or trust.

"Our relationship with God is similar to our relationship with others in the sense that all relationships require faith, and I can never and will never fully know any other person. This is because we are incapable of fully knowing others because we cannot experience all they experience nor enter into their minds to know what their thoughts and emotions are"

So, again, and again I will say that you are talking about a system that is only theoretical, and has no practical application.

"Alas, you make a huge fail in this argument.

There, indeed, is a grand regulator. They are called the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Not a God."

So, on a four- pointer road, we have laws of logic, don't we? We logically know that we shouldn't cross when the other one is crossing, but still , do we follow these logics? That was the point of my example. This has actually strengthened my argument, because ‘laws of physics and laws of logic don't stop us from overtaking the vehicle which is crossing ahead of us.", how can they stop us from overtaking our own self professed ‘logically-correct' morals?

"Yes, one should. But will one? That's a question worth asking."
Worth asking--definitely! Relevant to the debate? Absolutely not. We're debating on the just legitimacy of opposing moral system. Whether one choose to follow it or not says nothing about the actual system."

So, you are actually saying that the system you propose is just a system opposing the moral system of God?
Whether one chooses to follow it or not has a Great deal to say about the actual system. The whole point about proposing a new system is the hope that it will be better than the prevalent system. And as I have continuously proven over the course of the debate, this system is something that is best left on paper because of so much it expects out of a man/woman. And the fact that you, yourself denied the opportunity of proving the workability of this system in real life, is something I will take against you, and if you have accepted that this system is not workable, why are we still debating it?

Vote CON!!!
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
i should have, now i think about it.
oh well, it was my first debate, bound to have some misses.:-)
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Actually she's hindu, I'm glad she didn't bring that up. Don't know enough about her idea of God.
Posted by ProHobo 6 years ago
ProHobo
I really thought FREEDO missed some opportunities to hit harder with the use of Reason. RoyLatham makes some excellent points about Deist and Slavery, I would think that the Age of Reason (Paine) would of been a good source in this debate.

God (for the most part) inferred the Christian God in this debate (as the use of Bible quotes was utilize). However it is important to point out that society had a moral code, even before the Moses came down from the mountain.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
"Because human nature does not change, morality doesn't change"

I don't think this correct. There are obviously some people who don't feel any duty to "family or community" or other things commonly thought to be human nature. I think the only solid thing about human nature is it's flexibility. We are a species built on adaptation. As such, we are extremely prone to be molded psychologically by our environment, to the extent that people of different cultures can seem like entirely different species in how they act and think.
Human nature does differ between humans, but the nature of what is rational or irrational does not. It's just a matter of figuring it out.

I may be wrong, but I still think that morality being based on human nature doesn't seem like a must. If we are to meet an alien species with a completely different nature than our own, would they not need to follow whatever morality we too should most need to follow? Morality based on reason is universal.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I'm tempted to vote Con based upon the superiority of her debate icon, but I'll put that aside.

I think morality is derived from human nature. That's what the Deist Founders of the US called "natural law." If God exists, then the problem is to discover what God wants. The natural law concept is that it is "self-evident," meaning observable. Humans are born with instincts for duty to self, family, and community. Morality is the set of rules that best satisfies fulfillment of those conflicting duties. The conflicting obligation means that while some moral duties are clear, others are not. The same moral problems and conflicts exist whether or not there is a God. If, for example, humans had a solitary nature like tigers, then we would have no moral duty to community. I k religion works out the rules slowly over time. Slavery was once moral, but now immoral.

In the debate, I think Pro made the better argument, calling for derivation based on reason, but he didn't say what reason operated upon. It isn't abstract, like the rules of math. It is reason applied to human nature. Because human nature does not change, morality doesn't change, although we may do better at figuring it out.

Nice debate.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
The chances are almost nil.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
Now, what you state, logic and reason, theoretically may seem easy, it may seem that it is the better answer, a better proposal to the world. But really, it is infinitely weaker than it seems. Simply because Man is not that strong.
Let us take an example. At a four pointer road, we Need a red light, right?
Why?
Every vehicle-driver knows the rules, it knows the logic, the reason, it knows it shouldn't cross when another one is crossing, but still we need a red light to regulate the traffic. or there is a traffic jam. It's simple. On an infinitely small proportion, man cannot live without a regulator. How can you expect him to live and follow logic and rules when he believes there is no regulator of the world?
This is what is eating the world today. Today we just can't imagine there is a god. We don't believe we are answerable to anyone, and slowly and steadily this competitive ideology is coming into being. This ideology that states- in simple words, ‘the end result matters'. The ‘by hook and by crook' thinking. This is what happens when we don't believe in the things we should.
"One must merely ask themselves when deciding if something is wrong to do:
"If everyone did it, would it be beneficial to me?""
Yes, one should. But will one? That's a question worth asking. You are proposing something that would seem ideal, and can be workable. But the probability is very less. It's almost impossible. It's like we are comparing a bad democracy to a good dictatorship. Can there be a good dictatorship? Yes. But the chances…? Really less. Because with great power comes great responsibility. In a dictatorship, the power is given to a single person. And yet the person actually exercising the power responsibly is infinitely less compared to the people exploiting it. In fact, I can't recall even one at this point of time. But the system you are proposing, you propose to give the power to hundreds, thousands, millions of people and expect them to exercise it responsibly. T
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
I tried to reply to your claims sentence by sentence, but they say the same thing, so I better club up my response over here.

"Every one of us believes in something which helps us to live a life on earth."

" It's useless for me to think that I am merely a perishable body that is nothing but just the outcome of an accident with big bang etc. I contemplate on the physical part of our existence and enjoy the fragrance of a divine presence of someone who has planned to make this human body so dexterously and beautifully. Some vital and delicate parts of our body are protected by covering with hard bones and skeleton. Is there no logic to believe a planner who is superior to human being? We may call Him as God or with any other name; whatever we may like to call Him."~dipu]

The question about whether there is a god or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. The question is about our belief in him. If we believe in him, we have our reasons, and if we don't , it's the lack of reasons. But if we believe in him, we, at every point include him in our decisions, and thus that feeling shapes our actions, and our character, and finally morals. If we don't, we simply don't include him anywhere and it's just us and the society… While shaping our decisions, we don't have to prove his existence to us. So, the actuality does not affect our decisions. So I don't see how whether God exists or not has any relation to the discussion in continuation. It does not affect our decisions. Nor our actions.

This is what sums up mostly everything.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
Sorry for the forfeit. My server was down. Anyway, i m posting my entry through comments section.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
It's impossible to have an Objective morality because you need a omnisciense figure, eg God.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ProHobo 6 years ago
ProHobo
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 6 years ago
s0m31john
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 6 years ago
ravenwaen
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40